North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional

First topic message reminder :

On Wednesday night, in the course of just a few hours, North Carolina became the most anti-LGBTQ state in the country.

In a special session called for exactly this purpose—and which cost taxpayers $42,000 a day—the legislature passed a stunningly vicious, completely unprecedented bill stripping LGBTQ North Carolinians of their rights. The measure revokes local gay and trans nondiscrimination ordinances throughout the state, effectively legalizing anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and forbids trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. That includes trans public school students, many of whom will now, in effect, be barred from using the bathroom at school. Shortly after the legislature passed the bill—over the objections of every Senate Democrat, all of whom walked out of the chamber in protest—Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law. Explaining that he was eager to nullify Charlotte’s new LGBT nondiscrimination measure, McCrory wrote, “The basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte.”

McCrory should know something about government overreach. The gallingly cruel bill he just signed doesn’t just transgress basic norms of decency and morality. It also violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

As interpreted by the Department of Education, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbids discrimination against trans students in any school that receives federal funding. These schools are prohibited from excluding trans students from the bathroom consistent with their gender identity. The new North Carolina law, dubbed H2, rebukes this federal mandate by forbidding public schools from allowing trans students to use the correct bathroom. That jeopardizes the more than $4.5 billion in federal education funding that North Carolina expected to receive in 2016. Without that money, many schools in the state—from kindergarten through college—will be unable to function. McCrory should prepare to explain to North Carolina parents why their children’s access to education is less important than degrading and demeaning trans students on account of their identity.

HB 2 is also unconstitutional—not maybe unconstitutional, or unconstitutional-before-the-right-judge, but in total contravention of established Supreme Court precedent. In fact, the court dealt with a very similar law in 1996’s Romer v. Evans, when it invalidated a Colorado measure that forbade municipalities from passing gay nondiscrimination ordinances. As the court explained in Romer, the Equal Protection Clause forbids a state from “singl[ing] out a certain class of citizens” and “impos[ing] a special disability upon those persons alone.” Such a law is “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects,” and under the 14th Amendment, “animosity” toward a “politically unpopular group” is not a “proper legislative end.” Just like the law invalidated in Romer, HB 2 “identifies persons by a single trait”—gay or trans identity—“and then denies them protection across the board.” The Equal Protection Clause cannot tolerate this “bare desire to harm” minorities.

HB 2 classifies and targets trans people on its face, rendering its anti-trans provisions immediately susceptible to Romer scrutiny. (Legislators justified this assault by claiming that trans nondiscrimination laws permit sexual predators to attack women in bathrooms, but this is pure and proven fiction, which cannot pass even lenient judicial review.) The law’s attack on gays and bisexuals, however, is slightly subtler. Instead of naming sexual minorities, the law bars municipalities from passing nondiscrimination laws that extend beyond the statewide standards—which, of course, do not forbid sexual orientation (or gender identity) discrimination. So, in practice, no city can legally protect its LGBT residents.

This artful workaround cannot save the rest of the bill. Under Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan, courts must attempt to glean whether a law with a disparate impact on minorities was motivated by discriminatory intent. To do so, courts examine several factors—all of which align chillingly with HB 2. For example, does the challenged law disproportionately affect one minority? (Yes.) Does the “historical background” reveal “a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes”? (Yes—the stated purpose of the law was to overturn Charlotte’s LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance.) Do the events leading up to the law depart from normal decision-making procedures? (Yes; the legislature rammed the law through in record time with minimal discussion.) Does the legislative history reveal governmental animus? (Absolutely: From the start, Republican legislators have vocally supported HB 2 as an effort to disadvantage LGBT people.)

And even if a court were somehow not convinced that HB 2 runs afoul of Arlington Heights, another, even more venerable precedent controls: 1967’s Reitman v. Mulkey, whose continued vitality the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed. In Mulkey, the court confronted a purportedly neutral California law that prohibited any legislative interference with property owners’ right to refuse to sell or rent their property for any reason. The court rightly noted that even though the law did not explicitly mention discrimination, its “immediate design and intent” was to establish a “right to privately discriminate” in a manner that directly harmed minorities. Thus, the law’s efforts to leave discrimination as its subtext could not save it from crashing into the shoals of the Equal Protection Clause.

HB 2 is Mulkey redux. Actually, it is Mulkey combined with Arlington Heights, cast through the lens of Romer, refracted through the prism of Obergefell v. Hodges. In short, it is blatantly and brazenly unconstitutional, an appalling attempt to humiliate LGBT people, exclude them from the political process, and impose special burdens on their everyday lives. It cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, and it barely even pretends to be motivated by anything more than a desire to harm politically unpopular minorities. Such legislation is an affront to the Equal Protection Clause and to America’s constitutional tradition. One hundred and twenty years ago, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that our Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” On Wednesday, North Carolina created a new class, a lesser class, among its citizens. It is now up to the courts to remind the state of Harlan’s other admonition: “In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/03/24/north_carolina_s_anti_lgbtq_law_is_unconstitutional.html

Lord Foul wrote:what evidence do you have that gender identity "could" be a choice....

though I suppose that there may be a very few out there that "adopt a gender" out of sheer bloody mindedness

there are few limits to human eccentricity

It might not be innate - it could be the result of their environment. Weren't you just saying that about religious faith?

not exactly

your "specific faith" may well be environmental

your "need" to have "a" faith one would immagine must be innate...otherwise in the face of modern knowlege we'd all (at least in the west) be atheist/agnostic or possibly pagan...(depending on the particular line of paganism one would follow)

simply becasue pure logic would show that "most" of the major religions are unsustainable in the face of scientific fact.....

Raggamuffin wrote:How about people who look like men go in the men's loo, and people who look like women go in the ladies?

That's too simple.

Lord Foul wrote:how about no mens and no womens...

"gender neutral " cubicles

Cubicles are the problem. What's needed is an enclosed bog like the disabled get.  That way you can let rip with impunity and nobody need be embarrassed!

Lord Foul wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



I don't believe I actually said the word 'abnormal' did I. ..!?


My post was in affirmation of the rights of the overwhelming vast majority of people to be able to go to the toilet in a safe and secure and relaxed gender specific environment without the allowance of the imposition of various worrying types of questionable sexual orientations and unspecific genders upon them...!!!

you really are the most ridiculous type of addle pated old fossil....

Why do you say that...!?


And why have you allowed this post but deleted my last post saying more or less exactly the same thing except for me using the term 'sexual deviants' instead of the guff type descriptions I used above...!?

becasue tommy, you know as well as I do that "sexual deviants" carries a whole load of baggage and meaning that is NOT thus carried by the descriptions you used above....

this is what I mean by your "agenda"
and why I think you are a devious and evil little snake....

you deliberately choose to use "loaded terms" in order to demonise a minority you personally hate....

HoratioTarr wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:how about no mens and no womens...

"gender neutral " cubicles

Cubicles are the problem. What's needed is an enclosed bog like the disabled get.  That way you can let rip with impunity and nobody need be embarrassed!

What about my rights and the possible negative effects on me having to use a toilet after a stinker...!?

Firstly the stink itself being akin to a form of chemical/biological attack against me and a form of poisoning by the administering of a harmful/noxious substance against me etc...

But secondly, it could harm my social standing by having to leave a toilet after said stinker, only to find someone important waiting to go in and who then had a dose of the repugnance but forevermore assumed it was down to me...!!!


Surely a more inclusive shared toileting space would be fully embracing the diversity of stink and thereby creating a more holistic collective responsibility etc... and thereby continuing to facilitate an environment where the biggest stinkers can carry on their toxic dumping with impunity knowing that the rest of society will also be forced to take a share of responsibility... now that's 'equality' for you...!!!

Lord Foul wrote:becasue tommy, you know as well as I do that "sexual deviants" carries a whole load of baggage and meaning that is NOT thus carried by the descriptions you used above....

this is what I mean by your "agenda"
and why I think you are a devious and evil little snake....

you deliberately choose to use "loaded terms" in order to demonise a minority you personally hate....

But... didnt you previously claim that definitions are transient...!?


So how can you now claim to be the authority on the definition of 'sexual deviant' or the connotations etc...!!!???


You are totally undermining your argument for removing my post!!!


The words aren't banned... the use of the words isn't banned... reinstate my post and apologise please...!?

NO!...IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.....whinge to Ben

and stop playing weasle words and stop you damnable twisting...I said...Normal was/is transient....

and definitions may well also be changing in many things....
however

AT THIS POINT IN TIME the term "sexual deviant " is predudicial and a slur...
and will be dealt with as such...



carry on arguning tommy and Ill have no choice but to deal with THAT aspect as per the prohibition on "disruption"

I'm wondering why this forum allows avi's of gollywogs and blackface?   How can it condemn slurs against race, colour, sexuality or creed when blatantly offensive images are condoned?

The law will probably be over turned anyway. Its funny how American conservatives always oppose 'big government' and demand matters be dealt with at a more local level- yet when given power over a whole state they use 'big government' to enforce which bathroom a group of people can use statewide.

Hypocrites in the extreme.

What was the original law which this new one overturns? It was a local one made in Charlotte, yes? Did it demand that transgender must be allowed to use their bathroom of choice, regardless of how that might affect others?

It seems to me that the overturning of it, and the massive swing in the other direction - forbidden transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice under any circumstances - is perhaps a backlash against the all or nothing kind of laws which are passed.

I mean - it's common sense isn't it? In some situations it might be perfectly fine for a transgender man, for example, to use a women's bathroom, but not in others. Why there needed to be a law about it in the first place is a mystery to me. Shouldn't it be up to individual organisations based on their particular bathroom arrangements?

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the original law which this new one overturns? It was a local one made in Charlotte, yes? Did it demand that transgender must be allowed to use their bathroom of choice, regardless of how that might affect others?

It seems to me that the overturning of it, and the massive swing in the other direction - forbidden transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice under any circumstances - is perhaps a backlash against the all or nothing kind of laws which are passed.

I mean - it's common sense isn't it? In some situations it might be perfectly fine for a transgender man, for example, to use a women's bathroom, but not in others. Why there needed to be a law about it in the first place is a mystery to me. Shouldn't it be up to individual organisations based on their particular bathroom arrangements?

Again you have no idea of what you are talking about.
This is gender discrimination and no surprises that you again advocate such a stance being as you do not understand Transgender
The Supreme court will rightly kick this backward law into touch where it rightly belongs

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How about people who look like men go in the men's loo, and people who look like women go in the ladies?

That's too simple.

That's where they started...people who wore pants in one door; people who wore skirts, another.  But that just removes it to choice.  It lacks the coercive element of the law telling you who you are.  Would you like lil Suzy exposed to a guy with that ugly thing?  Just because he wore a skirt?

So North Carolina is trying to deal with it, and they've said, enough!  Let's have everybody take a look at their birth certificates and figure out who they are, and we'll start over.

Only, turns out, the birth certificate is just as arbitrary.

Frankly, I think gender neutral bathrooms work rather well. The real problem is, in bars people with dicks tend to pee on the toilet seat. I think they got into gender-specific because of that.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

That's too simple.

That's where they started...people who wore pants in one door; people who wore skirts, another.  But that just removes it to choice.  It lacks the coercive element of the law telling you who you are.  Would you like lil Suzy exposed to a guy with that ugly thing?  Just because he wore a skirt?

So North Carolina is trying to deal with it, and they've said, enough!  Let's have everybody take a look at their birth certificates and figure out who they are, and we'll start over.

Only, turns out, the birth certificate is just as arbitrary.

Frankly, I think gender neutral bathrooms work rather well.  The real problem is, in bars people with dicks tend to pee on the toilet seat.  I think they got into gender-specific because of that.

I think that N Carolina has said enough as well. This seems to be about what people feel comfortable with rather than anything else, and so if you have a law which makes some people feel more comfortable, but which leaves others feeling uncomfortable, which side do you take? That's why these all or nothing laws are so absurd IMO. What's wrong with compromise and dealing with things on a more individual or situational basis - ie, using common sense?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's where they started...people who wore pants in one door; people who wore skirts, another.  But that just removes it to choice.  It lacks the coercive element of the law telling you who you are.  Would you like lil Suzy exposed to a guy with that ugly thing?  Just because he wore a skirt?

So North Carolina is trying to deal with it, and they've said, enough!  Let's have everybody take a look at their birth certificates and figure out who they are, and we'll start over.

Only, turns out, the birth certificate is just as arbitrary.

Frankly, I think gender neutral bathrooms work rather well.  The real problem is, in bars people with dicks tend to pee on the toilet seat.  I think they got into gender-specific because of that.

I think that N Carolina has said enough as well. This seems to be about what people feel comfortable with rather than anything else, and so if you have a law which makes some people feel more comfortable, but which leaves others feeling uncomfortable, which side do you take? That's why these all or nothing laws are so absurd IMO. What's wrong with compromise and dealing with things on a more individual or situational basis - ie, using common sense?

No its about people thinking they can impose inequality, based on them denying people their gender identity.
If others feel uncomfortable, then they are the issue and the problem, not the Transgender people. Frankly they can rewove themselves from the toilet if they are bigoted idiots, as its they have the problem not the Transgender

A lot of this legislation is all about who got heard last.  

To your point Raggs, 'what makes you comfortable' may be keeping lil Suzy away from seeing that guy flashing her.  So it's not all a free and open question of choice.

On the other hand, as didge is pointing out, protecting lil Suzy may run smack into gender equality issues.

Original Quill wrote:A lot of this legislation is all about who got heard last.  

To your point Raggs, 'what makes you comfortable' may be keeping lil Suzy away from seeing that guy flashing her.  So it's not all a free and open question of choice.

On the other hand, as didge is pointing out, protecting lil Suzy may run smack into gender equality issues.

So why should the comfort of one person override the comfort of another?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:A lot of this legislation is all about who got heard last.  

To your point Raggs, 'what makes you comfortable' may be keeping lil Suzy away from seeing that guy flashing her.  So it's not all a free and open question of choice.

On the other hand, as didge is pointing out, protecting lil Suzy may run smack into gender equality issues.

So why should the comfort of one person override the comfort of another?

Right...like I say. It's just a matter of who got heard last that day in the legislative chamber. In the interests of protecting lil Suzy??? Or in the interests of gender equality...?

This is what happens when men and women share toilet facilities.  



Incidentally, The Thin Blue line featured a chap who was very camp but wasn't gay - played by the wonderful James Dreyfus.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

That's too simple.

That's where they started...people who wore pants in one door; people who wore skirts, another.  But that just removes it to choice.  It lacks the coercive element of the law telling you who you are.  Would you like lil Suzy exposed to a guy with that ugly thing?  Just because he wore a skirt?

So North Carolina is trying to deal with it, and they've said, enough!  Let's have everybody take a look at their birth certificates and figure out who they are, and we'll start over.

Only, turns out, the birth certificate is just as arbitrary.

Frankly, I think gender neutral bathrooms work rather well.  The real problem is, in bars people with dicks tend to pee on the toilet seat.  I think they got into gender-specific because of that.

Women wear pants, men wear kilts.  What the hell has that do with transgender?    

The real ignorance here is presuming a transgender person is a sexual deviant of some kind.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's where they started...people who wore pants in one door; people who wore skirts, another.  But that just removes it to choice.  It lacks the coercive element of the law telling you who you are.  Would you like lil Suzy exposed to a guy with that ugly thing?  Just because he wore a skirt?

So North Carolina is trying to deal with it, and they've said, enough!  Let's have everybody take a look at their birth certificates and figure out who they are, and we'll start over.

Only, turns out, the birth certificate is just as arbitrary.

Frankly, I think gender neutral bathrooms work rather well.  The real problem is, in bars people with dicks tend to pee on the toilet seat.  I think they got into gender-specific because of that.

Women wear pants, men wear kilts.  What the hell has that do with transgender?    

The real ignorance here is presuming a transgender person is a sexual deviant of some kind.

I don't think that is the assumption though. The issue is that men who are not transgender might go into women's bathrooms or changing rooms and just pretend that they're transgender. Also, some women just don't like the idea of sharing bathrooms or changing rooms with any men but not because they think they'll be molested or anything.

Perhaps the norm should be a toilet designed for both men and women.
I go to a couple of really nice places where the loos are for every gender.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Women wear pants, men wear kilts.  What the hell has that do with transgender?    

The real ignorance here is presuming a transgender person is a sexual deviant of some kind.

I don't think that is the assumption though. The issue is that men who are not transgender might go into women's bathrooms or changing rooms and just pretend that they're transgender. Also, some women just don't like the idea of sharing bathrooms or changing rooms with any men but not because they think they'll be molested or anything.

Again which is an excuse to enable inequality as has been said many times.
To go off a risk of which nothing is offered to even substantiate is poor to say the least
I think you need to get over your blatant prejudice as this again is blatant discrimination, using a supposed claim to a crime, that no evidence has been presented to claim this is a major problem

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Women wear pants, men wear kilts.  What the hell has that do with transgender?    

The real ignorance here is presuming a transgender person is a sexual deviant of some kind.

I don't think that is the assumption though. The issue is that men who are not transgender might go into women's bathrooms or changing rooms and just pretend that they're transgender. Also, some women just don't like the idea of sharing bathrooms or changing rooms with any men but not because they think they'll be molested or anything.

Men who pretend to be transgender in the hope of getting a flash are going to behave in a totally different way from the genuine ones, and most women can sniff out a pervert from 20 paces.

Syl wrote:Perhaps the norm should be a toilet designed for both men and women.
I go to a couple of really nice places where the loos are for every gender.

If all toilets offered total privacy, it wouldn't be an issue.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Perhaps the norm should be a toilet designed for both men and women.
I go to a couple of really nice places where the loos are for every gender.

If all toilets offered total privacy, it wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly. Our local restaurant has 4 or 5 separate toilets, at least 2 of them are M/F....I think the others are disabled and baby changing....something for everyone.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think that is the assumption though. The issue is that men who are not transgender might go into women's bathrooms or changing rooms and just pretend that they're transgender. Also, some women just don't like the idea of sharing bathrooms or changing rooms with any men but not because they think they'll be molested or anything.

Men who pretend to be transgender in the hope of getting a flash are going to behave in a totally different way from the genuine ones, and most women can sniff out a pervert from 20 paces.

Can they? In that case, why are there so many reports of date rapes and women being assaulted?

The point is that if men were allowed into women's bathrooms, the women wouldn't know if one was a pervert because they would expect to see men in there. Do transgender men have a sign on their forehead or do they all wear dresses? I don't think so.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

If all toilets offered total privacy, it wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly. Our local restaurant has 4 or 5 separate toilets,  at least 2 of them are M/F....I think the others are disabled and baby changing....something for everyone.

Do you mean that each one has its own washbasin? That would be expensive to change to, and it would also take up more room.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Men who pretend to be transgender in the hope of getting a flash are going to behave in a totally different way from the genuine ones, and most women can sniff out a pervert from 20 paces.

Can they? In that case, why are there so many reports of date rapes and women being assaulted?

The point is that if men were allowed into women's bathrooms, the women wouldn't know if one was a pervert because they would expect to see men in there. Do transgender men have a sign on their forehead or do they all wear dresses? I don't think so.

So now again you offer up now a claim on rapes to women, and make a comparison to the toilets

Where is the countless evidence it has been men trying to enter toilets disguised as Transgenders?

Again its not men being allowed into toilets showing you do not know what a transgender is

How many more times are you going to deny the gender of people and then say what gender you think they are?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Exactly. Our local restaurant has 4 or 5 separate toilets,  at least 2 of them are M/F....I think the others are disabled and baby changing....something for everyone.

Do you mean that each one has its own washbasin? That would be expensive to change to, and it would also take up more room.

Yes they each have a washbasin, mirror and hand dryer.
I don't think it takes up any more room than separate cubicles and a communal area for sinks mirrors etc.
Yes It would cost to change every toilet facility, I doubt whether it would happen overnight though.
Local M&S and Java cafe's provide facilities in the actual cubicles already.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you mean that each one has its own washbasin? That would be expensive to change to, and it would also take up more room.

Yes they each have a washbasin, mirror and  hand dryer.
I don't think it takes up any more room than separate cubicles and a communal area for sinks mirrors etc.
Yes It would cost to change every toilet facility, I doubt whether it would happen overnight though.
Local M&S and Java cafe's provide facilities in the actual cubicles already.

I've seen that where there's maybe one or two loos but not more than that. I'm thinking of places like Selfridges in London where there are loads of cubicles in the ladies' room. I'm not sure that it would take up the same space to have self-contained ones with sinks and dryers. Mind you, those toilets are always busy so it's unlikely that a woman would end up on her own with a bloke in them anyway.

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Cubicles are the problem. What's needed is an enclosed bog like the disabled get.  That way you can let rip with impunity and nobody need be embarrassed!

What about my rights and the possible negative effects on me having to use a toilet after a stinker...!?

Firstly the stink itself being akin to a form of chemical/biological attack against me and a form of poisoning by the administering of a harmful/noxious substance against me etc...

But secondly, it could harm my social standing by having to leave a toilet after said stinker, only to find someone important waiting to go in and who then had a dose of the repugnance but forevermore assumed it was down to me...!!!


Surely a more inclusive shared toileting space would be fully embracing the diversity of stink and thereby creating a more holistic collective responsibility etc... and thereby continuing to facilitate an environment where the biggest stinkers can carry on their toxic dumping with impunity knowing that the rest of society will also be forced to take a share of responsibility... now that's 'equality' for you...!!!

You mean your shit don't stink?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes they each have a washbasin, mirror and  hand dryer.
I don't think it takes up any more room than separate cubicles and a communal area for sinks mirrors etc.
Yes It would cost to change every toilet facility, I doubt whether it would happen overnight though.
Local M&S and Java cafe's provide facilities in the actual cubicles already.

I've seen that where there's maybe one or two loos but not more than that. I'm thinking of places like Selfridges in London where there are loads of cubicles in the ladies' room. I'm not sure that it would take up the same space to have self-contained ones with sinks and dryers.  Mind you, those toilets are always busy so it's unlikely that a woman would end up on her own with a bloke in them anyway.

Again its not men being allowed into toilets showing you do not know what a transgender is

How many more times are you going to deny the gender of people and then say what gender you think they are?

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Men who pretend to be transgender in the hope of getting a flash are going to behave in a totally different way from the genuine ones, and most women can sniff out a pervert from 20 paces.

Can they? In that case, why are there so many reports of date rapes and women being assaulted?

The point is that if men were allowed into women's bathrooms, the women wouldn't know if one was a pervert because they would expect to see men in there. Do transgender men have a sign on their forehead or do they all wear dresses? I don't think so.

Any bloke who's going to pretend he's transgender isn't going to be able to pull it off, if you'll excuse the pun.  Even the most feminine transgender would have difficulty fooling a woman.   Not unless she's exceedingly naive.  I've not met a transgender/transsexual yet that I've thought was a born woman and I've met and known a few.  Nor would I fear one sharing a toilet area with me.    How about women who become men?   Would a man object to sharing his toilet space with a transgender/transsexual woman to male? 

   I assume men that date rape don't wear a frock and lipstick  prior to slipping the Rohypnol into the drinks.   

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's where they started...people who wore pants in one door; people who wore skirts, another.  But that just removes it to choice.  It lacks the coercive element of the law telling you who you are.  Would you like lil Suzy exposed to a guy with that ugly thing?  Just because he wore a skirt?

So North Carolina is trying to deal with it, and they've said, enough!  Let's have everybody take a look at their birth certificates and figure out who they are, and we'll start over.

Only, turns out, the birth certificate is just as arbitrary.

Frankly, I think gender neutral bathrooms work rather well.  The real problem is, in bars people with dicks tend to pee on the toilet seat.  I think they got into gender-specific because of that.

Women wear pants, men wear kilts.  What the hell has that do with transgender?    

The real ignorance here is presuming a transgender person is a sexual deviant of some kind.

You're missing the point, Harry. Pants and kilts are merely surrogates for choices, as I originally said.

But, as to your point on discrimination, care to frame your thesis better? How is confusion and lack of a single criterion, a presumption of deviancy? I mean, I think it's a clear conflict of purposes of laws...called an antinomy. Isn't lil Suzy's mother entitled to segregate her daughter from exposure to others legitimately using the toilet? Conversely, aren't the transgender's entitled to choose the rest room that most appropriately fits their identity?

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Women wear pants, men wear kilts.  What the hell has that do with transgender?    

The real ignorance here is presuming a transgender person is a sexual deviant of some kind.

You're missing the point, Harry.  Pants and kilts are merely surrogates for choices, as I originally said.

But, as to your point on discrimination, care to frame your thesis better?  How is confusion and lack of a single criterion, a presumption of deviancy?  I mean, I think it's a clear conflict of purposes of laws...called an antinomy.  Isn't lil Suzy's mother entitled to segregate her daughter from exposure to others legitimately using the toilet?  Conversely, aren't the transgender's entitled to choose the rest room that most appropriately fits their identity?

Lil Suzy, of course, should be accompanied by her mother into the toilet, yes? 

If you put yourself into the transgender/transsexual shoes.   You are now a woman.   You feel like a woman.  You dress like a woman.  You may even be in possession of a vagina.   Where would you go for a piss?   

As for antinomy, I don't think the issue is unresolvable.   It's not about the laws.  It's about people's attitudes needing to change.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Can they? In that case, why are there so many reports of date rapes and women being assaulted?

The point is that if men were allowed into women's bathrooms, the women wouldn't know if one was a pervert because they would expect to see men in there. Do transgender men have a sign on their forehead or do they all wear dresses? I don't think so.

Any bloke who's going to pretend he's transgender isn't going to be able to pull it off, if you'll excuse the pun.  Even the most feminine transgender would have difficulty fooling a woman.   Not unless she's exceedingly naive.  I've not met a transgender/transsexual yet that I've thought was a born woman and I've met and known a few.  Nor would I fear one sharing a toilet area with me.    How about women who become men?   Would a man object to sharing his toilet space with a transgender/transsexual woman to male? 

   I assume men that date rape don't wear a frock and lipstick  prior to slipping the Rohypnol into the drinks.   

I don't know what a transgender man looks like or behaves like. I've seen men who are dressed in a very feminine manner - then again, they might have actually been women.

I don't know about women who want to be men either. Do they look like men? If so, how would another man know they weren't really a man?

Anyway, I'm simply putting forward the issue of men pretending to be transgender because that's what the people in North Carolina said.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Any bloke who's going to pretend he's transgender isn't going to be able to pull it off, if you'll excuse the pun.  Even the most feminine transgender would have difficulty fooling a woman.   Not unless she's exceedingly naive.  I've not met a transgender/transsexual yet that I've thought was a born woman and I've met and known a few.  Nor would I fear one sharing a toilet area with me.    How about women who become men?   Would a man object to sharing his toilet space with a transgender/transsexual woman to male? 

   I assume men that date rape don't wear a frock and lipstick  prior to slipping the Rohypnol into the drinks.   

I don't know what a transgender man looks like or behaves like. I've seen men who are dressed in a very feminine manner - then again, they might have actually been women.

I don't know about women who want to be men either. Do they look like men? If so, how would another man know they weren't really a man?

Anyway, I'm simply putting forward the issue of men pretending to be transgender because that's what the people in North Carolina said.

Still showing zero understanding of transgender

Again its very simple, that you cannot discriminate on transgender

Show me all these criminal cases where men have pretended to be Transgender gaining access to public toilets?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes they each have a washbasin, mirror and  hand dryer.
I don't think it takes up any more room than separate cubicles and a communal area for sinks mirrors etc.
Yes It would cost to change every toilet facility, I doubt whether it would happen overnight though.
Local M&S and Java cafe's provide facilities in the actual cubicles already.

I've seen that where there's maybe one or two loos but not more than that. I'm thinking of places like Selfridges in London where there are loads of cubicles in the ladies' room. I'm not sure that it would take up the same space to have self-contained ones with sinks and dryers.  Mind you, those toilets are always busy so it's unlikely that a woman would end up on her own with a bloke in them anyway.

Safety has to be considered obviously...remember the young lad who was frogmarched through Debenhams in Manchester and raped in the toilets by 2 'men'?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're missing the point, Harry.  Pants and kilts are merely surrogates for choices, as I originally said.

But, as to your point on discrimination, care to frame your thesis better?  How is confusion and lack of a single criterion, a presumption of deviancy?  I mean, I think it's a clear conflict of purposes of laws...called an antinomy.  Isn't lil Suzy's mother entitled to segregate her daughter from exposure to others legitimately using the toilet?  Conversely, aren't the transgender's entitled to choose the rest room that most appropriately fits their identity?

Lil Suzy, of course, should be accompanied by her mother into the toilet, yes? 

If you put yourself into the transgender/transsexual shoes.   You are now a woman.   You feel like a woman.  You dress like a woman.  You may even be in possession of a vagina.   Where would you go for a piss?   

As for antinomy, I don't think the issue is unresolvable.   It's not about the laws.  It's about people's attitudes needing to change.

Why should lil Suzy be accompanied by her mother? In case she falls into the toilet, or because she might be accosted?

Apparently, is someone has had a sex change operation and changed their birth certificate they can go into the toilet re the sex it says on their birth certificate.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've seen that where there's maybe one or two loos but not more than that. I'm thinking of places like Selfridges in London where there are loads of cubicles in the ladies' room. I'm not sure that it would take up the same space to have self-contained ones with sinks and dryers.  Mind you, those toilets are always busy so it's unlikely that a woman would end up on her own with a bloke in them anyway.

Safety has to be considered obviously...remember the young lad who was frogmarched through Debenhams in Manchester and raped in the toilets by 2 'men'?

Yes - a very bizarre incident. I find it hard to believe the toilets were so empty, but I suppose they must have been.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Safety has to be considered obviously...remember the young lad who was frogmarched through Debenhams in Manchester and raped in the toilets by 2 'men'?

Yes - a very bizarre incident. I find it hard to believe the toilets were so empty, but I suppose they must have been.

Still showing zero understanding of transgender

Again its very simple, that you cannot discriminate on transgender

Show me all these criminal cases where men have pretended to be Transgender gaining access to public toilets?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Can they? In that case, why are there so many reports of date rapes and women being assaulted?

The point is that if men were allowed into women's bathrooms, the women wouldn't know if one was a pervert because they would expect to see men in there. Do transgender men have a sign on their forehead or do they all wear dresses? I don't think so.

Any bloke who's going to pretend he's transgender isn't going to be able to pull it off, if you'll excuse the pun.  Even the most feminine transgender would have difficulty fooling a woman.   Not unless she's exceedingly naive.  I've not met a transgender/transsexual yet that I've thought was a born woman and I've met and known a few.  Nor would I fear one sharing a toilet area with me.    How about women who become men?   Would a man object to sharing his toilet space with a transgender/transsexual woman to male? 

   I assume men that date rape don't wear a frock and lipstick  prior to slipping the Rohypnol into the drinks.   

Some very manly men wear frocks outside. It's just part of their personality.
I have been in ladies loos in nightclubs when big hairy transvestites have used the loos....mind you that was back in the 70's 80's when unbelievably many people seemed to be more liberal...and definitely a lot less pc than today.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Safety has to be considered obviously...remember the young lad who was frogmarched through Debenhams in Manchester and raped in the toilets by 2 'men'?

Yes - a very bizarre incident. I find it hard to believe the toilets were so empty, but I suppose they must have been.

It was bizarre...they actually marched him through the busy shop.
We reported those very same loos years before. My OH had taken our son to the gents and men were hanging around...I think it was a well known gay hangout.
Conveniently there were stairs going up to the gents that led from outside.
Not sure if that's still the case ...I doubt it because the men who raped the lad didn't use them.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Any bloke who's going to pretend he's transgender isn't going to be able to pull it off, if you'll excuse the pun.  Even the most feminine transgender would have difficulty fooling a woman.   Not unless she's exceedingly naive.  I've not met a transgender/transsexual yet that I've thought was a born woman and I've met and known a few.  Nor would I fear one sharing a toilet area with me.    How about women who become men?   Would a man object to sharing his toilet space with a transgender/transsexual woman to male? 

   I assume men that date rape don't wear a frock and lipstick  prior to slipping the Rohypnol into the drinks.   

Some very manly men wear frocks outside. It's just part of their personality.
I have been in ladies loos in nightclubs  when big hairy transvestites have used the loos....mind you that was back in the 70's 80's when unbelievably many people seemed to be more liberal...and definitely a lot less pc than today.

Well yes, and we didn't need silly laws about it. I'm sure I used the mens' loos in nightclubs in my youth once or twice when the queue for the ladies was too long.

I think this new law is a knee-jerk reaction to the law which was passed in February. It's all a bit of a fuss really.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're missing the point, Harry.  Pants and kilts are merely surrogates for choices, as I originally said.

But, as to your point on discrimination, care to frame your thesis better?  How is confusion and lack of a single criterion, a presumption of deviancy?  I mean, I think it's a clear conflict of purposes of laws...called an antinomy.  Isn't lil Suzy's mother entitled to segregate her daughter from exposure to others legitimately using the toilet?  Conversely, aren't the transgender's entitled to choose the rest room that most appropriately fits their identity?

Lil Suzy, of course, should be accompanied by her mother into the toilet, yes? 

Which doesn't avert her eyes.  These are southerners...to them, Suzy is irreparably damaged merely looking at the genitals of the opposite sex.

Horatio Tarr wrote:If you put yourself into the transgender/transsexual shoes.   You are now a woman.   You feel like a woman.  You dress like a woman.  You may even be in possession of a vagina.   Where would you go for a piss?   

Ok, I see your thesis of discrimination.  Now, think back to the simple-minded southerner weighing the two values.  Can't you see how the antinomy came about?  The southerner is going to put very little weight on the transgender issue, while Suzy is a cute little darling...and who would vote against a cute little girl?

Horatio Tarr wrote:As for antinomy, I don't think the issue is unresolvable.   It's not about the laws.  It's about people's attitudes needing to change.

I agree, it's probably not irresolvable.  But you are abandoning the task if you leave it with "attitudes must change."  How?  

What do you propose?  First, it most certainly is about laws...we are talking about a law.  Second, admittedly, laws are the product of attitudes.  Again, how do you 1) get a North Carolinian to be more sensitive to transgenders, and what do you do about averting Suzy's eyes?

Original Quill wrote:

I agree, it's probably not irresolvable.  But you are abandoning the task if you leave it with "attitudes must change."  How?  

What do you propose?  First, it most certainly is about laws...we are talking about a law.  Second, admittedly, laws are the product of attitudes.  Again, how do you 1) get a North Carolinian to be more sensitive to transgenders, and what do you do about averting Suzy's eyes?

Why would Suzy ever need to avert her eyes when there is no urinals in the ladies toilets?

Of course, if a man came into the ladies' powder room, lil Suzy wouldn't actually see anything because we don't have urinals in them - we have cubicles only.

Perhaps it's urinals which are the problem - too awful to look at.

Anyway, I think the main issue will be in schools and locker rooms/changing rooms. Presumably, a young male teenager who is transgender doesn't go around in a dress, so it wouldn't be obvious. I posted a story about a transgender girl who was told not to use the girls' room because the girls didn't want a boy in there. That suggests that the girls didn't know the girl was a girl, which is a bit odd really.

I'm just trying to find out where this law applies - public buildings or all businesses, and if it applies to places like swimming pool changing rooms, etc.